I've said it before, so I will copy it and say it again.

I have been reading up on the history of paratroopers from 1914-1945 for some reason, I do not know why, and the success of an airborne invasion depended not on the weather, as you would expect, but on who you were fighting against. I have only finished the part on German paratroopers in WWII, Italian and British joint-ops in WWI and some Russian operations in WWII. I will go into detail about these below.

In WWI, paratroopers were mainly Italian spies dropped by the British behind enemy lines. They would drop up to five men in one go, I think, and then drop bombs on the way back for an alibi in case they were shot down. The spies would then gather info and wreak havoc.

Then we go into German airborne operations during WWII. They were initially used to try and bring down part of the Maginot line or some heavy duty forts in Maastricht in Belgium, I am not sure, and secure some bridges and make sure that the bridges were not destroyed as someone had placed explosives on them. The Germans were dropped in by parachute and gliders from a JU-52. This did not go well. Some JU-52's were shot down(I think), some gliders were shot down or crashed on landing but the normal paratroopers who had 'chutes were okay. I think some planes had to turn back and I know that the tow ropes on some of the JU-52's snapped, causing the glider to fall short. Despite these setbacks as well as some troopers getting blown off course, the invasion went okay. Some troops had to disable a fort by landing on top of it and clearing it from top to bottom. This went wrong as wind caused the troopers to land in the wrong place. The had to climb up to the top of the fortress, under enemy fire, and blow a hole in the roof, which they were meant to do anyway. This worked well enough. When they had done this, they were after disabling the AA's on the roof and securing the forts top floor. They had lost the element of surprise while climbing up and could not secure the rest of the fort and took heavy casualties. They had to wait for reinforcements to arrive. When they finally did, most of the men were dead, injured or exhausted, including the CO who had been killed/wounded, not too sure. They successfully took the bridges with minimal casualties, but did not have time to remove the bombs, only to defuse them. When the enemy counter-attacked, they accidentally blew up one/two/all of the three bridges during the firefight from stray bullets hitting the bombs. This slowed the invasion down. Some other stuff happened too but I am not searching through the book to look for it. The invasion went well but there were a lot of casualties. They fought the French, British and Belgians here I think.

During the German invasion of Norway, the paratroopers did a great job capturing airfields, especially when paired up with some Bf 110's. The Bf 110's would land sometimes land at an airfield(that was already in enemy hands) and use their waist gunner to shoot at ground forces on the field, wreaking havoc. Then the paratroopers would come in. When the paratroopers tried to capture a bridge leading to the capital, which was on an island, they failed. When they were sent to capture the town, they failed again. On those two occasions they had been fighting Brits while at the airfields they were fighting Norwegians.

Then we have the final time that German paratroopers were used against the Brits. This was the invasion of Crete. This really is a funny story, you should read about it in full detail. I will run through it quickly to get on to the Russians. Basically, the battle lasted a week or so, I believe. After bombardment from some Stuka's and strafe runs from Bf 110's and 109's, I think. Then the funniest invasion I have ever read about was launched. Their was a few divisions, 4-5 I think, involved. The first wave was all either shot down, shot while parachuting down, blown of course or crashed on landing. Their first objectives were to disable enemy AA's and capture an airfield. They did not succeed and took heavy casualties. Whenever reinforcements arrived, the same thing would happen. They spent most of the time running from the Greek, Aussie and British forces. Eventually after heavy casualties and a failed seaborne invasion which had been sunk by the British, they took they island. The results of this was the destruction of any ground unit which had been involved in the invasion, any survivors being transferred to another unit and German never again mounting an airborne invasion against the allies.

For the Russians, basically the suffered heavily enough casualties but Russia always has more men so more men were trained and sent to the unit that needed them. They were a lot more successful than the Germans because instead of being used against the frontline troops, they were deployed behind German lines to kill retreating men and capture airfields. The main reason this was successful was because they always had armies pushing ahead to meet up with them.

Now that we have learnt a little about airborne units, let me point out some things. Paratroopers cannot be deployed in cities, mountains or forests, so you could only use them one terrain ingame. They are easy to defend against by digging ditches and putting up poles where they could actually land. When they are on their way to the dropzone, while landing and for a few minutes afterwards when they are finding their weapons, they would be vulnerable to attack unless you have them a fighter escort on their way and bomber protection while landing and getting their guns, which in turn would need another escort. When all is said and done, it would most likely be quicker and cheaper to build a BB with some tanks and infantry.

I read your thread after posting my last comment. I will address some of your ideas.

You said landing in a city. This is not possible as landing is too dangerous as you might get caught in or hit something during the jump. Landing in an ocean is just stupid, they would drown.

Research should be available on day 1, since they were used pretty early into the war.

It was possible and they did drop heavy equipment during WWII, but usually after the initial attack as reinforcements. Usually it was some light armour and mid-sized anti-tank guns.

For the actual drops, you would have to make multiple trips to bring, say, 1k troops in to the DZ. This would take ages since drops are usually only at night/early morning and it can take 4-5 nights to drop in just 500 men.

Weather is and always will be a problem. Troops tended to get scattered over a few miles of land.

Paratroopers can land anywhere, but if you deploy them in most area's they tend to die.

Paratroopers are not elites, not in WWII anyway. They were basically used to carpet bomb areas, but instead of bombs it was a few hundred men, most of whom would likely die.

Pretty sure you move faster through friendly land than enemy land. The main weakness of paratroopers is that they are easy to shoot down and if you catch them while they are landing, they are dead since they land only with pistols.

I never thought paras makes sense in a grand strategy level game (like this one.) They are used tactically or operationally but almost never strategical.

The only exception is maybe create and that was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Paratroopers are deployed behind enemy lines and is lightly armed, the main reason why paratroopers are used is to secure and protect bridges from being blown up by the enemy for the main army such as tanks and supply trucks can pass easily. also paras won't last long if the army is slow, do you think they can handle a tank? There are many sucsesfull para mission because the target is undefended. Paratroopers are an interesting addition but I vote againts the idea.

I am in great support of the paratroop unit. Greatly susceptible in the air, yes. Will take 30 minutes, to an hour, to organize during a drop (this is likely due to being peppered by anti-air, and being dropped God only knows where becuase your pilots freaked out)... such as the Normandy invasion, night time made this worse. Market Garden air drops were during the day-light, and experienced much less Luftwaffe, or anti-air flax. These troops landed unmolested, and organized quickly... until the panzer korps showed up, and had them for lunch.

My point is, if no units are there to shot at them, they can organize quickly, and effectively. If your enemy is a noob, or you have removed air defense by other means, it can be possible to deploy your troops behind the enemies front. In this game of strategy, you can tie up the enemy units on the front, and deploy paratroops in the rear, capturing lightly, or totally unprotected provinces, and make a lot of annoyance. This forces the enemy to deploy troops, and resources to areas that are not at the front, it creates chaos, and disorganization.

I doubt that anyone in CoW, if we had paratroops, is going to use them in every single battle. But once or twice in a major offensive, I would definitely make use of them. Putting troops where the enemy isn't prepared for there to be troops is a very nice tactic, in my opinion.

Stop, this thread is dead. Leave it have it's dignity and please do not start another argument.

then don't read it, go away

I will not. I will not have a useless, stupid unit put in the game. Read the argument through, then we can argue. The unit would be useless, it is basically a militia you can drop behind enemy lines.

I would gladly use militia that I could drop behind enemy lines. It is my thinking that there can be in game applications for such a unit, and that it could find success.

I wouldn't, it is a unit that if you used a few of them 1 MT could wipe them out.

Paratroopers were dropped behind enemy lines and probably their most effective use was on D-Day in Normandy (also as someone else mentioned they had success because their reinforcements were rushing up to meet them).

In the scale of this game behind enemy lines would still be inside the province you are attacking. They would never be used to invade an entirely different province without support. That is why I dont see much value in adding them to the game.

Not every province is the size of the Russian provinces. Central Europe has an abundance of small, tightly packed provinces. Your argument assumes, without providing justification, that the range of the paratrooper is limited, and that it is impossible to drop troops in an entirely different province.

Who would drop militia far behind lines where one tank could easily kill it(paratroopers are essentially militia when it comes to strength)?

I have to agree with yippieyak. I personally would use them to drop them 2 provinces into enemy territory, hold the position, wait for my coming armies and then repeat the process. In the case they get killed, at least you've caused damage in enemy lines, and diverted the enemy to that province, which gives your main army more time. And Bill, sorry to correct you, but they were elite units. They were given much more extensive training than normal infantry, and better weapons, along with better wages. It is not just like "dropping militia in enemy lines".

A better MG and rifle than the standard stuff wouldn't do much against a Pz. I, never mind a Panther or an armoured car.

Yes, but that's only against tanks. Better equipped than normal infantry, they could resist various attacks.

P.S. Some if them actually had bazookas. Watch the movie Band of Brothers. Best movie ever.

A movie is never a reliable source of info. Just look at Black Hawk Down. Based on a true story, still a load of bull is within its run time.